COMMEO’s Post

The Court of Justice of the EU has issued today the long awaited judgment in case C-334/22! The court held that (official English translation is still to be issued): 1)          Article 9(2) and Article 9(3)(a) to (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 must be interpreted as meaning that: a third party who, without the consent of the manufacturer of motor vehicles which is the proprietor of a European Union trade mark, imports and offers for sale spare parts, namely radiator grille for those motor vehicles, which incorporate a component intended to affix an emblem reflecting that trade mark and the shape of which is identical with, or similar to, that trade mark, is using the sign in the course of trade in such a way as to infringe one or more of the functions of that trade mark, which is for the national court to ascertain.   2)          2. Article 14(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 must be interpreted as:   'it does not preclude a motor vehicle manufacturer which is the proprietor of a European Union trade mark from prohibiting a third party from using a sign identical with, or similar to, that trade mark in relation to spare parts for motor vehicles, namely radiator grille, where that sign consists of the shape of a component of the radiator grille intended to bear an emblem reflecting that trade mark, it being immaterial in that regard whether it is technically possible to affix that emblem to the radiator grille without affixing that sign to it'. We are extremely pleased with this verdict. The court approached the case in a more structured way than the arguments presented in the opinion. The CJEU emphasised that the premise for the application of Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 concerning 'use of a sign in the course of trade' must be examined before any assessment of the existence of a likelihood of confusion can be made. The rurling makes it also clear that a 'repair' clause was not provided for in Regulation 2017/1001.   As arguments regarding distortion of competition were strongly raised by the opposite party the CJEU has given guidance on this too and explained that the objective of preserving undistorted competition has been taken into account in Article 14 of the Regulation. Consequently, Article 9 of the Regulation cannot be interpreted in such a way as to lead to the application by analogy of Article 110 of Regulation No 6/2002 and to a restriction, on the basis of that provision, of the right conferred on the proprietor of an EU trade mark by that Article 9.   This is an extremely important case for trademark protection. We are pleased and grateful to our client AUDI for entrusting us with this matter and trusting our firm SK+. We also thank AUDI team and our friends from Lubberger Lehment for excellent and fruitful cooperation in this case! The link to Polish version of the ruling below: https://lnkd.in/dFgM8FwW

At the end of January, the European Commission (EC) announced that it is had begun conducting “unannounced inspections” – commonly known as dawn raids – at the European offices of the world’s leading tyremakers. The investigation intends to find out whether or not “the inspected companies may have violated EU antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices”. In the days immediately after that news broke, it quickly became apparent that (in alphabetical order) Bridgestone, Continental, Goodyear, Michelin, Nokian and Pirelli all received those visits. All the above companies issued statements denying the allegations and confirming that they are cooperation with the authorities. The EC’s announcement was short on detail and the investigated tyremakers are being understandably tight-lipped about the whole thing, which leaves significant questions about what the grounds for such an investigation were in the first place. What we do know is that the investigation relates to the suggestion that there has been price-related collusion within the highest levels of the European tyre business. Furthermore, at the time of the initial investigation announcement, the EC reported that “public communication” plays a big role since, the EC is “concerned that price coordination took place amongst the inspected companies, including via public communications.” A few days after news of the EC investigation broke, the US offices of the same tyremakers were sued in America. The lawyers bringing the class-action suing on behalf of the named plaintiff in that case, Rena Sampayan did so in the State of California. Documents filed in relation to Rena Sampayan versus Tyremakers offer a bit more detail as to the grounds for the actions against some of the best-known tyre brands. In short, the legal action was prompted by two things – the string of tyre price increases the market has witnessed across several different global regions in recent years; and, secondly, the manner in which tyremakers have communicated price information. While no-one has been able to draw a straight line between the EC investigation and Sampayan versus Tyremakers, it is more than likely that the EC investigation provided the inspiration for the action against the same tyremakers in the US. For the same reason, there is likely to be a degree of crossover in the argumentation used in both cases. A couple of weeks later, in mid-February, a second class-action case was brought against the same tyremakers in America, bringing the legal action total to three – one EC investigation across “various member states” in Europe and two class-action suits in the USA. The latter case was also brought in the Southern District of New York but the fact that Marco A. Torres is named as plaintiff, distinguishes it from Sampayan versus Tyremakers. However, the cases are similar. As in Sampayan versus Tyremakers, Torres versus Tyremakers is driven by the

At the end of January, the European Commission (EC) announced that it is had begun conducting “unannounced inspections” – commonly known as dawn raids – at the European offices of the world’s leading tyremakers. The investigation intends to find out whether or not “the inspected companies may have violated EU antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices”. In the days immediately after that news broke, it quickly became apparent that (in alphabetical order) Bridgestone, Continental, Goodyear, Michelin, Nokian and Pirelli all received those visits. All the above companies issued statements denying the allegations and confirming that they are cooperation with the authorities. The EC’s announcement was short on detail and the investigated tyremakers are being understandably tight-lipped about the whole thing, which leaves significant questions about what the grounds for such an investigation were in the first place. What we do know is that the investigation relates to the suggestion that there has been price-related collusion within the highest levels of the European tyre business. Furthermore, at the time of the initial investigation announcement, the EC reported that “public communication” plays a big role since, the EC is “concerned that price coordination took place amongst the inspected companies, including via public communications.” A few days after news of the EC investigation broke, the US offices of the same tyremakers were sued in America. The lawyers bringing the class-action suing on behalf of the named plaintiff in that case, Rena Sampayan did so in the State of California. Documents filed in relation to Rena Sampayan versus Tyremakers offer a bit more detail as to the grounds for the actions against some of the best-known tyre brands. In short, the legal action was prompted by two things – the string of tyre price increases the market has witnessed across several different global regions in recent years; and, secondly, the manner in which tyremakers have communicated price information. While no-one has been able to draw a straight line between the EC investigation and Sampayan versus Tyremakers, it is more than likely that the EC investigation provided the inspiration for the action against the same tyremakers in the US. For the same reason, there is likely to be a degree of crossover in the argumentation used in both cases. A couple of weeks later, in mid-February, a second class-action case was brought against the same tyremakers in America, bringing the legal action total to three – one EC investigation across “various member states” in Europe and two class-action suits in the USA. The latter case was also brought in the Southern District of New York but the fact that Marco A. Torres is named as plaintiff, distinguishes it from Sampayan versus Tyremakers. However, the cases are similar. As in Sampayan versus Tyremakers, Torres versus Tyremakers is driven by the

Is it Time for a ‘Lemon Law’ in Malaysia? 🍋🍋 The recent Court of Appeal case involving Poratha Corporation and FA Wagen Sdn Bhd has brought consumer rights into the spotlight, and possibly a step closer to Malaysia having its own “lemon law.” After a long battle over a defective Volkswagen Polo, the Court of Appeal stood firm that a consumer should not be left with a problematic product, and FA Wagen couldn't introduce new legal arguments on appeal. The Court of Appeal awarded Poratha damages of RM90,000, highlighting that goods must be of "acceptable quality" under the Consumer Protection Act 1999. The judge's call for a lemon law like Singapore’s – where buyers of cars and other products have clearer rights if they receive a "dud" – raises an interesting question: Could such legislation make business more consumer-friendly in Malaysia? This case is a clear message: businesses need to step up on quality and responsiveness, or risk facing legal consequences! #YALaw

US Antitrust Law: Tier manufacturers Cartel: Major tire manufacturers including Pirelli (PIRC.MI), opens new tab, Continental (CONG.DE), opens new tab, Michelin (MICP.PA), opens new tab and Nokian (TYRES.HE), opens new tab were sued on Wednesday in U.S. federal court for alleged price-fixing, days after European Union competition authorities announced an investigation into a possible cartel. The lawsuit, opens new tab was filed by a California resident in Manhattan federal court and seeks class-action status for U.S. purchasers of tires from the tire makers since January 2020. Other companies sued in the case include Bridgestone (5108.T), opens new tab and Goodyear (GT.O), opens new tab. #competitionlaw #antitrustlaw https://lnkd.in/gHg4D9Hm

The Court of Appeal in London ruled on Wednesday that Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority can compel companies based outside the United Kingdom to provide information as a result of a case initiated by German carmakers BMW Group and Volkswagen Group, challenging the CMA’s authority to request documents and information #antitrust #antitrustlaw #competitionlaw #autoindustry #information

Exploring Horizontal and Vertical Agreements in Competition Law Horizontal and vertical agreements are two separate forms of arrangements under competition law, each with its own set of legal implications and considerations. Horizontal agreements arise when competitors at the same level of the supply chain agree to fix prices, allocate markets, or coordinate production levels. These agreements are often anticompetitive since they limit competition and can result in higher pricing, fewer customer choices, and market inefficiencies. As such, they are often scrutinized under competition laws globally, including laws against cartels and antitrust regulations. In contrast, vertical agreements involve parties at different levels of the supply chain, such as agreements between manufacturers and distributors or retailers. These agreements can include terms related to pricing, distribution territories, exclusivity arrangements, and resale price maintenance. While vertical agreements can promote efficiency and distribution of goods, they also have the potential to harm competition, particularly if they create barriers to entry for new competitors or restrict consumer access to alternative products. For instance, if a manufacturer imposes minimum resale prices on retailers, it could limit price competition among retailers, thereby harming consumer choice. The legal implications of horizontal and vertical agreements differ significantly. Horizontal agreements are generally viewed with skepticism under competition law due to their potential to eliminate competition among rivals. They are often subject to strict scrutiny and may be deemed illegal if they substantially lessen competition or harm consumer welfare. In contrast, vertical agreements are assessed based on their potential to enhance efficiency and consumer choice versus their potential to harm competition by foreclosing market access or distorting prices. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for businesses to navigate competition law effectively. Compliance with these laws ensures that agreements do not unduly restrict competition or harm consumers. Regulatory authorities play a key role in enforcing these laws to promote fair competition, innovation, and consumer welfare in markets across various industries. #CompetitionLaw #HorizontalAgreements #VerticalAgreements #Antitrust #MarketCompetition #RegulatoryAnalysis #law #ConsumerProtection  #CorporateCompliance

On Wednesday, major tire producers such as Pirelli, Continental, Michelin, Nokian, Bridgestone, and Goodyear were sued in a U.S. federal court for alleged price-fixing. This legal action comes shortly after the European Union's competition watchdog announced it was investigating the potential formation of a cartel among these manufacturers. A lawsuit initiated by a Californian seeks to represent all U.S. consumers who bought tires from these companies since January 2020, arguing that the firms conspired to inflate prices of replacement tires for a range of vehicles. While Continental has publicly committed to zero tolerance for non-compliance and pledged to investigate such allegations rigorously, other companies have been less forthcoming, with some not responding to comments and others, like Pirelli and Michelin, asserting their adherence to legal and regulatory standards. The lawsuit follows the European Commission's January 30 announcement of its investigation into the tire sector, suspecting price coordination among these major players. This move by the European Commission often leads to subsequent civil antitrust lawsuits in the U.S., as observed with the recent surge of litigation against building materials firms following a similar EU probe. The current lawsuit claims the U.S. tire market has long been dominated by a few key players with a history of antitrust violations, seeking triple damages and a stop to the alleged anti-competitive behavior. The case is officially filed as Rena Sampayan v. Continental AG et al in the Southern District of New York.

On 13 March 2024, the German FCO announced that it fined an Austrian manufacturer for vertical price-fixing. The decision proofs that vertical price fixing is still a hot antitrust topic. Read more about the German FCO's decision and what undertakings need to consider in relation to vertical agreements in my latest blog post: https://lnkd.in/egZJp6aT. #cliffordchance #antitrust

Sometimes a supplier will want to enter contracts with their retailers to maintain the price of a product at a certain level when those retailers sell the product to consumers. That may be per se illegal under certain state antitrust laws. And courts may also find it illegal under federal antitrust law through the rule of reason. These are called Resale Price Maintenance Agreements. But there is a loophole called a Colgate policy. It doesn't involve an agreement and must be done right to avoid liability. You can read more about it here: https://lnkd.in/gmQZkxz